The Wolfman (C- or 1.5/4 stars)
For a film titled 'The Wolfman' (directed by Joe Johnston), it's actually quite tame & quite lame. The film begins in the sleepy Victorian hamlet of Blackmoor, England, 1891. There stands the large, yet near-dilapidated estate of Sir John Talbot (Anthony Hopkins), whose son Ben has vanished - well, we see him get brutally attacked by a werewolf in the opening scene. The other Talbot heir, the estranged Lawrence (Benicio Del Toro), now a touring stage actor in America, answers a plea letter from his brother's fiancee, Gwen (Emily Blunt), to come home to search for him. By the time Lawrence reaches Talbot Hall, his brother's mangled body has been discovered, put on ice, & a funeral has been arranged. Lawrence, determined to find the 'thing' responsible for his brother's death, begins a hunt that leads him straight to a forest gypsy camp. But during his visit, he is attacked; chomped on the neck by a half wolf-half man beast.
The gypsy woman Maleva (Geraldine Chaplin) fixes the wound, but declares Lawrence to be cursed: 'Even a man who is pure in heart & says his prayers by night, may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms & the autumn moon is bright' -- wonderful. And indeed, by the time the next full moon rises, Lawrence is transformed; going on a bloody rampage that no one seems fit to stop; not even by a hot shot Scotland Yard inspector (Hugo Weaving). Depressed at losing his wife (to assumed suicide), & his son (to a beast), Sir John Talbot wonders what will come of Lawrence. And sad at losing her fiancee, Gwen turns her affections towards Lawrence. Can a tormented Lawrence overcome his horrifying destiny? What part does John Talbot have to play in all of this? And would Lawrence (who's developed reciprocal feelings for his brother's fiancee) be able to thwart his bloodlust for Gwen? Chaos, gore, & tragedy ensue.
'The Wolfman' is another re-make of those great 1930's/40's horror movies (Dracula, Frankenstein, The Mummy - all have been re-done in recent years). Similarly, many moves have come out about lycanthropy. Unfortunately, I can't say that this film is any good, or as good as the previous efforts. It's hard to pinpoint where the film goes wrong. For one thing, the film tries to tell a very dark, serious, gothic tale; though, it's blended with the kind of acute, high violence, gruesome gore (slashings, decapitations, disembowelments), & high-tech special effects that are more appropriate for a contemporary setting/style of story. Also, I know this is a horror film, but it is absolutely airless in tone. Doom & gloom. With horror must come campiness and/or spots for humor. None here.
I don't have too many nice things to say about this production, but I'll try. 'The Wolfman' is perfectly adequate to pop-in either by yourself or with company as a misty, moody, spooky midnight flick to curl up with. You know, make some tea, grab your favorite blanket, turn off the light, & ... well, try to stay awake. Oh, sorry, I'm supposed to be talking about positives. The foggy cinematography aids the moody atmosphere. The 1891 sets (village, estate, shops, woods) are impressive. The costumes, by a 3-time Oscar winner, are as good as one would expect; yet nothing amazing. Danny Elfman's score is appropriately ghoulish. And I suppose that the best aspect of the film is Rick Baker's werewolf make-up; though, it's aided too much so by special effects (which appear dated, anyway).
Benicio Del Toro has the perfect melancholy look for Lawrence/The Wolfman. There's a vulnerability to him, & a tortured-soul feel. But the inert & inept script gives him little to bite on (pun intended), & the character comes across muted. His portrayal of a tortured man with a vicious alter-ego failed to move me emotionally; a trait that is actually necessary in a film like this. Anthony Hopkins isn't bad, per say, but it's probably the most passe performance I've ever seen of him. He looks the part, but feels somewhat disinterested. The beautiful Emily Blunt tries desperately to make something significant out of nothing. You can actually see her straining to appear like a compelling character; but Gwen just isn't. And Hugo Weaving's inspector is a character that could have been cut-out altogether. He serves little-to-no purpose. In closing, 'The Wolfman' just falls FLAT. It lacks suspense. The scare tactics get old quickly. The wolf-on-wolf climax is laughable. And though I've seen far worse ... any positives I can take away from this movie are overwhelmed by stunning mediocrity in most other facets.
The gypsy woman Maleva (Geraldine Chaplin) fixes the wound, but declares Lawrence to be cursed: 'Even a man who is pure in heart & says his prayers by night, may become a wolf when the wolfbane blooms & the autumn moon is bright' -- wonderful. And indeed, by the time the next full moon rises, Lawrence is transformed; going on a bloody rampage that no one seems fit to stop; not even by a hot shot Scotland Yard inspector (Hugo Weaving). Depressed at losing his wife (to assumed suicide), & his son (to a beast), Sir John Talbot wonders what will come of Lawrence. And sad at losing her fiancee, Gwen turns her affections towards Lawrence. Can a tormented Lawrence overcome his horrifying destiny? What part does John Talbot have to play in all of this? And would Lawrence (who's developed reciprocal feelings for his brother's fiancee) be able to thwart his bloodlust for Gwen? Chaos, gore, & tragedy ensue.
'The Wolfman' is another re-make of those great 1930's/40's horror movies (Dracula, Frankenstein, The Mummy - all have been re-done in recent years). Similarly, many moves have come out about lycanthropy. Unfortunately, I can't say that this film is any good, or as good as the previous efforts. It's hard to pinpoint where the film goes wrong. For one thing, the film tries to tell a very dark, serious, gothic tale; though, it's blended with the kind of acute, high violence, gruesome gore (slashings, decapitations, disembowelments), & high-tech special effects that are more appropriate for a contemporary setting/style of story. Also, I know this is a horror film, but it is absolutely airless in tone. Doom & gloom. With horror must come campiness and/or spots for humor. None here.
I don't have too many nice things to say about this production, but I'll try. 'The Wolfman' is perfectly adequate to pop-in either by yourself or with company as a misty, moody, spooky midnight flick to curl up with. You know, make some tea, grab your favorite blanket, turn off the light, & ... well, try to stay awake. Oh, sorry, I'm supposed to be talking about positives. The foggy cinematography aids the moody atmosphere. The 1891 sets (village, estate, shops, woods) are impressive. The costumes, by a 3-time Oscar winner, are as good as one would expect; yet nothing amazing. Danny Elfman's score is appropriately ghoulish. And I suppose that the best aspect of the film is Rick Baker's werewolf make-up; though, it's aided too much so by special effects (which appear dated, anyway).
Benicio Del Toro has the perfect melancholy look for Lawrence/The Wolfman. There's a vulnerability to him, & a tortured-soul feel. But the inert & inept script gives him little to bite on (pun intended), & the character comes across muted. His portrayal of a tortured man with a vicious alter-ego failed to move me emotionally; a trait that is actually necessary in a film like this. Anthony Hopkins isn't bad, per say, but it's probably the most passe performance I've ever seen of him. He looks the part, but feels somewhat disinterested. The beautiful Emily Blunt tries desperately to make something significant out of nothing. You can actually see her straining to appear like a compelling character; but Gwen just isn't. And Hugo Weaving's inspector is a character that could have been cut-out altogether. He serves little-to-no purpose. In closing, 'The Wolfman' just falls FLAT. It lacks suspense. The scare tactics get old quickly. The wolf-on-wolf climax is laughable. And though I've seen far worse ... any positives I can take away from this movie are overwhelmed by stunning mediocrity in most other facets.